State v. Turner
| Decision Date | 01 May 2018 |
| Docket Number | AC 40248 |
| Citation | 187 A.3d 454,181 Conn.App. 535 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Tyquan TURNER |
Ann M. Parrent, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state's attorney, and David L. Zagaja, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
DiPentima, C.J., and Bright and Eveleigh, Js.
The defendant, Tyquan Turner, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54c, robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes 53a–134 (a) (2), and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes 53a–48 and 53a–134 (a) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims: (1) there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree; (2) the trial court improperly admitted documentary and testimonial evidence regarding cell phone coverage maps in violation of his federal due process right to a fair trial; (3) prosecutorial improprieties during the state's closing and rebuttal arguments deprived him of his right to a fair trial; and (4) the trial court improperly instructed the jury with respect to robbery in the first degree.1 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.2
On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On the afternoon of July 13, 2013, the victim, Miguel Rodriguez, was standing on the sidewalk in front of 10–12 Flatbush Avenue in Hartford. Charlene Lara, a resident of the neighboring 18 Flatbush Avenue, was smoking a cigarette on her second floor porch. At approximately 3:54 p.m., Lara observed two people approach the victim from an open parking lot alongside 10–12 Flatbush Avenue, heard two series of gunshots, and called 911. Shortly thereafter, police and emergency response personnel found the victim, who was being tended to by residents of 10 Flatbush Avenue. The victim later was pronounced dead at Hartford Hospital.
Approximately seven or eight friends and family members of the victim were present when the shooting occurred. Those who were interviewed at the scene, although generally unwilling to provide any information about the incident or a suspect, indicated that the victim was missing a gold chain and medallion.3 Police officers, however, located two eyewitnesses who were willing to give statements regarding the incident, Lara and Jose DeJesus.4 A firearm or spent shell casings were never recovered.
On July 14, 2013, Dennis DeMatteo, a detective with the Hartford Police Department, received a phone call from an "[associate] of the family" who was "[o]ne of the friends and family" of the victim. The caller stated that the defendant was responsible for the victim's death and that the victim's family members and associates were planning retaliation. The caller also provided a photograph of the defendant, which DeMatteo circulated within his department. On July 16, 2013, Audley McLean, an owner of K & M Jewelry Corporation (K & M) contacted the Hartford Police Department. McLean stated that he had purchased a gold chain and medallion from Lorenzo Christian on the afternoon of July 13, 2013. McLean provided a photograph of the jewelry, a copy of the check, and Christian's state identification card to the police. Acting on that information, DeMatteo traced the check to a Webster Bank branch, located on Park Street in Hartford, and an account owned by Alexandra Colon, the mother of the defendant's daughter.
On August 6, 2013, Detective George Watson, while driving an unmarked police vehicle, stopped at an intersection in the north end of Hartford. Watson observed the defendant and Christian, whom he recognized from flyers circulating within his department, pull alongside his vehicle. The defendant then "took off." Watson, along with other Hartford police officers, pursued the vehicle until the defendant drove into the back of a building complex that had no exit. The defendant and Christian abandoned the vehicle, jumped a nearby fence, and continued on foot. The defendant was not apprehended but dropped his cell phone as he was exiting the vehicle. The cell phone was recovered by Hartford police. Christian was apprehended by Hartford police and admitted that he had been in possession of the chain and medallion.
On August 17, 2013, DeMatteo interviewed Colon at the Hartford Police Department. Colon admitted to cashing a check for the defendant and Christian. Colon also was shown the cell phone recovered on August 6, 2013, and, on the basis of a crack in the phone's screen, she identified it as the defendant's and provided DeMatteo with the defendant's cell phone number. With that number, DeMatteo confirmed that Sprint Corporation (Sprint) was the defendant's cell phone carrier and, thereafter, a subpoena was issued, ordering Sprint to produce the defendant's cell phone records from July 13, 2013, the day the homicide occurred, through August 6, 2013, the day the phone was recovered. Sprint's response to the initial subpoena was incomplete and did not include any records for July 13, 2013. The subscription information, however, indicated that the cell phone number was changed on July 14, 2013, the day after the crime, at the request of a person by the name of "Patrick." In response to a subsequent subpoena, Sprint produced the cell phone records, associated with that prior phone number, for July 13, 2013.
DeMatteo sent the cell phone records and locations of investigative interest to Andrew Weaver, a sergeant in the Hartford Police Department's special investigations division, who performed a call detail mapping analysis.5
Weaver input that data into a computer program called Oculus GeoTime, and produced a time lapse video visually representing the movement of the defendant's cell phone between approximately 3:04 p.m. and 6:48 p.m. on the day of the crime.6 Weaver also took screenshots of the video at different times between approximately 3:24 p.m. and 5:08 p.m. on the day of the crime.
On August 25, 2013, the defendant was approached by Hartford police Officer Carlos Montanez. The defendant identified himself as Aaron Patrick and presented fake identification under the same alias, which listed 7 Cherry Street as his residence. The defendant initially was charged with interfering with police on the basis of his having presented that fake identification. On September 11, 2013, the defendant was arrested in connection with the victim's death and subsequently charged with murder in violation of General Statutes 53a–54a, felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
A six day jury trial began on May 18, 2015. The state presented the testimony of DeJesus,7 Lara,8 and several members of the Hartford Police Department. The state introduced the defendant's cell phone records into evidence during its direct examination of Ray Clark, a custodian of records at Sprint. Clark identified the defendant's account subscription information, July 14, 2013 customer service record, and call detail records. Those three documents were admitted into evidence without objection. Thereafter, the state conducted its direct examination of Weaver and elicited testimony regarding the call detail mapping analysis he performed. The state introduced the time lapse video and snapshots that Weaver produced, which were admitted into evidence without objection. On May 26, 2015, the jury found the defendant guilty of felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.9 The trial court thereafter rendered judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict and sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of seventy years of incarceration, thirty of which are a mandatory minimum sentence. This appeal followed.10 Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant claims that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to convict him of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.11 Specifically, he argues that there was "no evidence apart from the alleged robbery from which an agreement to commit that crime could be inferred." The defendant filed a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the state's case but failed to renew this motion at the close of all of the evidence. Nevertheless, he seeks review of this unpreserved claim pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015). We review the defendant's unpreserved sufficiency of the evidence claim as though it had been preserved. See State v. Revels , 313 Conn. 762, 777, 99 A.3d 1130 (2014) ( , cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 135 S. Ct. 1451, 191 L.Ed.2d 404 (2015). Upon review of the record, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to convict the defendant of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
We first set forth the relevant legal principles governing sufficiency of the evidence claims. "In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a [two part] test. First, we construe the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [finder of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turner
...Accordingly, we affirm the Appellate Court's judgment. The following facts, as set forth by the Appellate Court in State v. Turner , 181 Conn. App. 535, 187 A.3d 454 (2018), and procedural history are relevant to our review of the defendant's claims. On the afternoon of July 13, 2013, the v......
- Jepsen v. Camassar
-
In re Annessa J.
...on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Turner , 181 Conn. App. 535, 549–50, 187 A.3d 454 (2018), aff'd, 334 Conn. 660, 224 A.3d 129 (2020). In In re Yasiel R. , supra, 317 Conn. at 781, 120 A.3d 1188, our Suprem......
-
State v. Jackson, AC 40433
...of whether Edwards applies retroactively to pending cases, this court twice has recognized that it does. See State v. Turner , 181 Conn. App. 535, 549 n.13, 187 A.3d 454 (2018) (stating that Edwards "retroactively applies to the present case because ‘a rule enunciated in a case presumptivel......